tv [untitled] March 16, 2012 11:30pm-12:00am PDT
fourth stories. i would say right up front for elevation and at the setback. as far as the fire escape, it is unfortunate that happened. we were not given permission to do that, to push back the fire escape. we were told it is best to bring it up and correct it. we waited to correct it and there is an application pending. for as far as the light, there is a study and that is enclosed in your packet. that shows the fourth floor in no way affects the neighbors on
the south side. as much as i know what it is like, the fourth floor going up, in actuality, there is no light being taken away from them because the shelters clearly in the months of january -- shadows in the months of january through april, if there was something cause, we would work with them, definitely. and make it happen. the owner agrees. we came up with -- and that is why the thing on the skylight and wanting a window box was rejected. >> speakers in support of the project? none? dear requestor, -- d.r. requestor, a two minute
rebuttal. you are speaking in support? >> i am the owner of the project. i wanted to say that on behalf of our neighbors, we wanted to improve the value of not only our building but the neighborhood. we think the look and feel is consistent with 10 or 12 other properties on the block. we do not want to impose on their light. that was a big concern. we spent over $4,000 on the study. we were more than willing to pay for some light but the tests showed there is no impact on light. the stairs is a mistake. we switched the stairs and recommended when we did the original modification that metal stairs would hold up longer. it turned out to be louder. it was a mistake. there were built incorrectly. we tried to rectify it but we could not pull.
going for, the plan is to replace the stairs and put rubber on it to reduce the noise. i am sorry, my daughter goes up and down the stairs, she takes the dogs up and down, it is the only way to get to the back yard is the back stairs. i apologize but hopefully with a rubber on the stairs it would be not -- it would not be a concern in the future. president fong: is there any additional speakers in support? >> i owned 28 and 30 toledo way, eight buildings over. i have interests in doing a very similar project. originally, i came here to listen in. i do have similar neighbors that are to my east that have expressed similar concerns.
i have for tree hard with them to try to resolve this. i am -- i have worked very hard with them to try to resolve this. i am here as a sign of compassion. i have tried very generously to work with neighbors. it is difficult when you are the honor and you're trying to improve the property and value, not only of your home but of the neighbors directly around you. i think here, it is very hard when the folks that have been there for a long time, they are emotionally invested in the property so they're not looking at it as you are. i would not live in my property indefinitely. i do not know what marks plans are -- mark's plans are. what he is doing to the property will do the same thing, just like he is saying. it will be more in line with the neighbor. thank you.
president fong: any other speakers in support? if not, d.r. requestor, you have to monitor bottle -- two minutes rebuttal. >> again, i can appreciate the interest in approving the property. it has helped the value of the neighborhood. regarding the other properties that are built up, they are either on the opposite side of the street, or on our side of the street. the only buildings that are four levels are on the block. this would be the only building in the middle of the block that is going out to four stories. as i said before, we were interested in trying to negotiate or find a solution that would be reasonable.
compensated through our perceived loss of life. that -- our idea was a skylight. we were trying to come up with a solution and to work it out with the neighbor. his response was nothing. we were forced to fall this to get a response. now that i met him in the hallway, he seems like a reasonable man. there's a chance we could work out a solution. i only wish we had done this earlier and not gotten to this point. it has been a great waste of our time and everyone else's. if i could have you look at this, turn this on briefly. i understand we have done all the studies. i see a great shadow cast on our property and also the loss of light. i do not see even though there is -- the sun looks like -- at that time of dya, -- day, it
looks like it will affect us. if they could push both back, there would be great. it is a great compromise. thank you. >> project sponsor, you have two minutes. none? public hearing is closed. commissioners? >> i have one question. with respect to the rubber treads. we have to take that as part of the submitted design. >> it is not in the plans so you would need to reference that. commissioner antonini: i do not see that much of an impact as was mentioned.
this is to the south of the property. there will not be too much of the sun impact. they did put in the matching white well -- light well. if there are some modifications that could be made i am not necessarily thinking it has to be a condition but i would be encouraging anything that could be done to make the project more acceptable and certainly, commissioner sugaya talked about the stairs, having it muffled as much as possible, now that there are to be redone anyway. commissioner moore: i would be interested to hear how these stairs were built in the first place. i do not quite get it. >> the light well contained wooden steps. the typical, old-style steps.
they were replaced without a permit in steel construction but in a larger footprint than the original wood steps. commissioner moore: who was the architect and who was the owner who did that? >> i do not know that. the same. commissioner moore: what surprises me is any architect or someone who calls themselves and are correct -- an architect does not know that is a replacement and you need to get a permit. at least in the old-fashioned interpretation of the code. you need to have the fire department walk the stairs and approve it. that is my interpretation. am i correct? >> that would be my understanding, yes. commissioner moore: thank you. this is a little bit unusual this happened in the first place. do we have any -- [unintelligible]
do you know if the same architect is the one who is proposing the addition or is that a coincidence that this comes out with this application? >> i believe this, because of this -- the project that is before us. commissioner moore: the same architect that did this year. it is not just done by somebody. >> a cannot say for sure but we can ask. commissioner moore: would you please? thank you. >> the mistake that was made on my part is that i took for granted that the general contractor and the metal stair contractor who was doing the job said they were going to do any kind because the old stairs or not usable. commissioner moore: that is not what i am asking. i appreciate your answer. the first responsibility -- that
is fine. the first responsibility lies with the architect who will draw the stair before it goes to the manufacture i think is the way the handoff from the design to production works. there is an omission here or an error starting not only with the wrong stair but starting also was not getting a permit. a project of that size, and the architect -- any architect would know that is the way any work starts. because of the size of it. i would like to suggest that while i am not opposed to an addition on the roof, i believe matching the light well but bringing that extra light to the edge of the light well is very much in not understanding what
that additional story means to the people living in or in the adjoining building. when you live on -- under dense conditions, people will look at at the sheer wall which basically does not have any modulation of scale. if you saw the edge of a roof before with something blunt talk, this is -- a blue blue o, this is sheer. we are asking the building to hold back from the side of the light well. commissioner sugaya: i will make a motion to require treads on the stairway. and to take d.r. >> second. commissioner moore: treads on
the wooden stair, aside from the top stair and the bottom stair are, i think, an issue of the code. i do not think that you can necessarily require a subsurface on every step but i am not quite sure. that is something that needs to be required and how it is detailed and how it is done. not only do you have a wooden stair, the only way it is done as the top and bottom stair have -- has a change in material indicating where the stair and and where it starts. so you do not just keep going and falling. i am not on top of the code. >> and want to clarify the proposed stairs -- i wanted to clarify that the proposed stairs
are steel. commissioner moore: i thought it was woodlynne. >> the current proposal in this application is a smaller steel staircase. commissioner moore: that is a bunch of other issues. for some reason i thought it was a replacement as a wooden stair. the steel stairs are notoriously loud. they're like an instrument which vibrates when you go down the stair and that in itself is a big issue. >> this deal stairs were proposed -- the steel stairs were proposed. that would split the light will -- well. there are rubber treads that can be placed. commissioner moore: there's
nothing else you do? it is still the stair as a steel sphere. it still picks of vibration. -- it is still the stair as a steel stair. >> there are dampeners that as each stair connects, can be placed on that center poll as well as on the treads. i have seen that. >> this is not a spiral staircase. >> excuse me. commissioner antonini: i am more -- i am ok with the motion. i assumed there would be, too. i guess it does allow for there to be less of a fire wall. under the building code, yes. that is too bad.
i am ok with the motion accept i would ask their project requestor and the d.r. -- the project sponsor and the d.r. requestor to work together. if there is anything to minimize the shadow. that would be appreciated. i am not making it a condition. there is probably some ways to cut those ways -- to make it less of a shadow. there's not much of a shadow but what is cast can be minimized by making some modifications. commissioner moore: i appreciate your saying that. the same modification of that will either by slightly setting it back or -- that will either by slightly setback or making it to scale. -- of that wall either by slightly setting it back or
making it to scale. >> is that something the maker of the motion is interested in? the maker of the motion is not excepting that. -- accepting that. >> can't you amend the motion? >> we cannot. are you excepting that as an amended condition? i do not have a second. commissioner moore: i make it a second. >> no. you're making a motion. commissioner moore: be prepared to talk about a softening --
would you be prepared to talk about a softening? commissioner antonini: i do not want to disrupt this addition to much. with that sound like something, i am talking about tampering -- champfering the corners. >> i had not considered that. it could possibly help. it depends on how deep is. if you look at the plans for the west side of that part that protrudes, it appears that is where the doorway for the fire escape is. that area i assume is an unused area anyway that will be access to the fire escape. i would say rather -- the one we're most concerned about is the evening light from the west. maybe leave the protruding side on the far side, on the east
side alone and let that come all the way out because that is going to block the morning light, if anything. we do not have a window over there. our dining room is on the other side. >> could i ask project sponsor to -- the architect. do you think that could be done, sir? >> you need to come to the microphone. >> i could talk to mark. commissioner antonini: we should talk to the honor and see if he is ok. i do not think you're losing too much there. >> we're putting rubber on the stairs anyway. we are dampening the noise and that has been known for six or
nine months. this other piece, i do not know what it accomplishes, to be quite frank. i understand what is being asked and i am happy to talk to them. according to building code, it does not talk to the light -- it does not cut off the light. i would rather not have changed today. >> it looks like there is a closet there that would be important and on the other side, it is a corner of the dining room. i'm not going to make it part of the motion. i will not second. i would make a suggestion that if they can work together and do anything along those lines, it is fine. it is too much to make a condition, to try to shave something off. commissioner moore: i would ask if whether the requestor is comfortable to find a relationship with the owner, to talk about and visualize what
would need to be modified. i am not trying to redesign the building. i want a certain sensitivity to what the issues are. i would expect the owner who would always be a neighbor, the d.r. requestor will always be a neighbor, to work it out with each other. if the architect was in the week before, -- in the way before, this is the moment to encourage them to take another look and come to a mutually softened position on the subject. >> it can require the -- you can require the rubber members and
>> good afternoon. this proposal is for revision to previously approved permit application to reduce the height of the rich of the gabled roof by approximately 6.5 inches. it will not be visible from behind an existing front parapet and to read -- revise the framing. no other enlargement of the building will occur. this property is located in the rh2 district. residential area. the original permit it -- dates back to 2000. to replace foundation and enlarge the rear. the notification was completed in november 2000. no discretionary review was filed. the permit was issued in 2001
and expired in 2002. the renewal permit was issued february 2011 to obtain a final inspection on work completed on the earlier permit. this permit was referred -- never referred. in july 2011, the planning department received a complaint that work was being performed at the site without the code of the -- the notification in regard to that building permit. by the time is complete -- this complaint was received, the work had been completed under the renewal come -- permit that began in march 2011. in august, this permit was revoked and sent to the planning department for review. the department found it identical to the permit and one of the products sponsor to match the approval. no 311 notice would be required
because the work was completed. the renewal permit was reinstated. the department and the staff and the fifth fesai abhisit vejjajiva and discovered the wreckage of the cable half -- the framing so the roof was consistent or file a new permit to legalize the work. the second permit was filed in 2011. work has been done to global good deal -- lower the gable. the second 2011 permit was to document this change and this
permit this was tried -- reviewed on. the project -- it was determined it meets the guidelines. others in the filing, the department has not received public correspondence. the department has determined the addition has created a significant adverse impact to adjacent residences on the spot. the department finds the work does not demonstrate extraordinary circumstances. this concludes my presentation. i would be happy to answer any questions. >> d.r. requestor, you have five minutes.
dat>> you need to start your presentation. it will come on. >> good afternoon. i am an architect in san francisco. in my 25th year of practice here. so proprietor. i would like to start with the screen and show you what i consider to be an extraordinary circumstance. this is a permit, you can see by the day, february 3, 2011. the issued date is 2-25. something came happened and you had to come back 22 days later. it is to receive final inspection of the work under the earlier permit. all work is complete. on the backside, you will see a
box checked that states that planning is required. their review. the word "n/a" had been written in crossed out -- in and crossed out by the department of building and actor -- inspection. this document appeared which does not have the february 3 stamp at the top. when we look at the back of that all-important planning requirement, it looks as if there is a third word. it is planning required. both of these applications were approved by dbi on the same day, by the same person and neither was referred to the planning department. that is extraordinary. one permit usually is enough. why they differ is not -- is a
good question. not our purview. i would hope it is exceptional that a request to alter an historic resource is allowed to be issued by dbi without planning department review or approval. i hope that is the exception. we have an extraordinary circumstance and at least we have, one hopes, the exceptional circumstance. when one gets a permit from dbi and one begins to work on that permit, it is referred to in legal language as having invested. unfortunately for mr. west, who was the original applicant in 2000, he was not able to begin his project and as a result, no work was performed and the permit expired. nine years later or nine days